These two questions and answers respond to a request from the Senate
Environment & Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Water. The questions were asked to follow up on my testimony before that
Subcommittee concerning proposed Invasive Species legislation. The
hearing took place on June 17, 2003, and these questions were received
on August 1, 2003. - James Beers

QUESTION: "Mr. Beers, your testimony suggests that the Federal
government should not attempt to exert control over state waters, but
has an appropriate role for ballast water. Many states are struggling
with budget issues that may affect their ability to implement their own
invasive species plans. What role, if any, do you suggest for the
Federal government in such circumstances?"

ANSWER: Exerting Federal authority over ballast water discharge, like
regulation of interstate commerce, neither involves nor requires Federal
control over state waters or lands. Just as the prevention of smuggling
or terrorism necessitates Federal regulations and Federal agents --
while creating Federal requirements and enforcement regimes on and over
state lands and waters without controlling the state lands and waters --
ballast water discharge and the prevention of harmful plant or animal
introduction requires no Federal taking of state authorities.

Any truly Harmful plant, animal, or infectious organism should be
designated by the Federal government and prevented from entering the
country. Proof of such harm should demonstrate significant potential
damage to human health, agriculture, or certain plants or animals
important to American citizens. Such biological entities should be (and
are) prevented from entering the country as much as is humanly possible.
Where and when they breach these safeguards, they should be (and are)
pursued and eradicated as quickly as possible, by Federal and state
authorities. State waters along the coasts or Great Lakes -- like state
lands bordering Canada or Mexico -- are the busy battlegrounds in these
legitimate, and necessary, Federal efforts.

The current "Injurious Wildlife List" provides a proven
approach. When a species like mongoose is proven (demonstrably and
definitively) to be a danger and seriously harmful, it is listed --
regulations direct Federal import regulators to exclude it -- and if it
breaches the controls, lethal controls and Federal/State animal
specialists eradicate it immediately. "Nativeness" has nothing
to do with it. The fact that it is not established -- and that it would
not require draconian government controls and billions of dollars to
ultimately not eradicate it -- has everything to do with it. Applying
this principle to goldfish or carp (two well established
"non-native" fish that could be painted by any number of
aquatic biologists as environmentally disruptive) would be incredibly
expensive, ultimately ineffective, and further erode the state authority
over plants and animals while growing Federal authorities and the tax
burden -- to no good purpose.

Regarding the issue of States "struggling with budget issues
that may affect their ability to implement their own invasive species
plans." If the Federal government stepped in and took state
authority every time States were "struggling with budget
issues" over the past century, we would have long since ceased
being a Republic and would have become a centrally ruled nation like
France, Australia, or Indonesia.

States were given and should maintain authority over all plants and
animals within their jurisdiction. Current Invasive Species desires in
many states are simply wishes -- expressed because of rumors of imminent
Federal funding availability -- and their continuing (and currently
acute) desire for more tax money from any source. Many states will
gladly abdicate their Constitutional authorities in this regard. They
are unwilling to protect the rights of their residents from other
Federal intrusions from which they obtain Federal funding. An example of
this would be Endangered Species takings of private property -- under
the guise of Critical Habitat declarations -- by Federal bureaucrats.
These same Federal bureaucrats also approve grants and monetary
assistance to state bureaucrats and University professors -- in the same
states. Another example is the forced closure of heavily used state
highways in National Parks -- by Transportation bureaucrats who dispense
highway funding to states. Invasive Species funding is likewise
seductive to these same Federal and state bureaucrats, university
professors and environmental activists who together testified so
overwhelmingly before your Subcommittee in favor of new Invasive Species
legislation. They aim to create new Federal authorities and begin an
annually increasing flow of Federal dollars for invented problems --
that will put Endangered Species abuses and lawsuits to shame.

The role I suggest for the Federal government in this matter is no
different from the one clearly envisioned when the final Constitutional
Amendment in the Bill of Rights (10th Amendment) was ratified. Federal
authority over interstate and foreign commerce provides all the Federal
authority needed to prevent the introduction of harmful and non-present
plants, animals, or microbes. This entails research on potential
threats; techniques for detecting, preventing, and eradicating harmful
entities; and maintaining regulations and employees to enforce the
Federal legislation to do these things. Invasive Species authority
should remain "reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."

In addition, because the Federal government owns more lands in the
United States than any other landowner, Federal lands (with the
exception of those few lands where Exclusive [of state authority]
Jurisdiction prevails, like the Washington Mall and Yellowstone National
Park) should be exemplary units managed in accordance with state laws --
and the standards of the communities wherein they occur. Federal
managers should manage and eradicate harmful plants like knapweed and
yellow starthistle on Federal properties, and refrain from imposing
urban standards like the elimination of grazing or hunting in rural
areas by new Federal authorities. Invasive Species authority will
certainly encourage such attempts.

Federal advocates of further involvement in the matter of Harmful
Species (i.e., "Injurious") might consider Land Grant
University research on controls for species such as fire ants and kudzu.
If the Environmental Protection Agency could be persuaded to permit
lethal control methods and agents, perhaps states would cooperate with
each other and at least reduce the density and distribution of such
species. Eradication is problematic in today's world where agencies,
laws, powerful environmental/animal rights organizations, and
regulations generally discourage lethal controls and problem species --
once purposely eradicated, like wolves -- are forcibly reintroduced over
state objections by Federal edicts.

State governments can, and do, enforce the plant and animal standards
and distributions desired by their residents. Whether such species have
been in place for twelve months, twelve years, or 500 years -- whether
the species were introduced for agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting,
fishing, gardens, or as pets; whether urban residents despise them or
rural people love them -- the numbers, distribution, use, management of,
and all decisions involving plants and animals should remain a primary
state responsibility.

QUESTION: "You've suggested that rainbow trout and striped bass,
both popular recreational fish, could be considered invasive species in
some of their present range. Does that represent concern that this
legislation may encourage lawsuits similar to those involving various
ESA and NEPA issues? If so, please elaborate."

ANSWER: Rainbow trout and striped bass greeted the first European
explorers. The striped bass occupied coastal waters and coastal streams
along the Atlantic seaboard and rainbow trout were ubiquitous in clear,
coldwater streams, found mainly in mountains and northern (U.S.) waters.
They were found to be very desirable due to their commercial abundance,
their tasty flesh, and for the fishing enjoyment they provided
individual fishermen seeking a sporting challenge and a good meal. As a
result they have been "introduced" (i.e., transplanted) all
over the U.S. Striped bass have been placed in reservoirs, Pacific
streams in California and in streams where they were formerly unknown.
Even greater transplanting took place with rainbow trout -- that are now
found throughout the nation in streams, ponds, reservoirs, the Great
Lakes, and even in cold tailwaters below southern desert dams. There is
no way to distinguish these transplanted fish from brown trout (bought
from Europe) or goldfish (brought from China) or walking catfish
(released from an aquarium and imported from Thailand). All are
"Invasive," "non-native" and
"non-indigenous" in most waters in which they occur today. Any
attempt to refine the "Invasive" definition (1492, 1776, etc.)
highlights the total lack of data for such an assertion -- and the
foolishness of judging what should be on "that mountain slope"
or in "those waters," based on past circumstances.

There is no doubt that -- however you define "Invasive" in
any Federal legislation -- these and similar species that have been
moved about for commercial purposes, sport purposes, or as the result of
water projects -- like the diversion of the Chicago River or reservoir
construction on the Missouri River -- will be targeted for extinction
over the majority of their current ranges. Just as court decisions,
Federal regulations, and Universities were manipulated by
environmentalists and animal rights activists using Endangered Species
legislative language and funding; so too will these same entities be
further utilized by the same people using Federal Invasive Species
authority.

Endangered Species legislative and regulatory language has been the
tool used to stop public works projects, logging, public land access,
fishing, and many other legitimate American freedoms and needed
improvements.

One example of fishing reduction is the unjustified listing of the
bull trout under the Endangered Species Act to justify the eradication
of rainbow trout in hundreds of miles of streams.

Universities are influenced by the possibility of obtaining Federal
grant monies for study. "Experts" on bats or darters are
rewarded with funds and attention (graduate students, tenure, and
recognition) if their biology asserts vague differences in races or
populations to be significant -- or habitat "requirements" as
needing more study -- because of overblown environmental interactions.

Invasive Species legislation will provoke the same groups to utilize
courts, bureaucrats, and professors in the same way.

Meaningless competition between west coast striped bass and some
other predator will be pictured as being 'very serious' by a biology
professor.

Courts, bureaucrats, professors (and, sad to say, even state agencies
eligible for Federal grants) will be prodded by groups opposed to sport
fishing, commercial fishing, boating, gas engines, shoreline
development, etc. -- to eradicate the striped bass and replace them with
far less desirable or less utilizable species.

This will be presented as "restoring the balance of nature"
-- and this scenario will be repeated nationwide -- until there is no
more private shoreline property, no sport fishing, no commercial
fishing, and no boating.

Anyone doubting these intended results need only look at the extreme
agendas and radical activities of environmental and animal rights groups
over the past twenty years.

Historical facts speak for themselves.

For the sake of all the things Americans hold dear -- from sport
fishing to private property to making a living from the sustainable
harvest of renewable natural resources -- please leave authority over
plants and animals at the state level, where the Founding Fathers wisely
placed it.